Man, I hope you're wrong. Historically for superhero franchises, the second film is usually the best of the series, because with the main character established and the origin story out of the way they're free to tackle new and exciting challenges. But Marvel still has yet to prove that they can do that. The only sequel they've gotten to, unless one counts The Incredible Hulk (which was more of a reboot than a sequel), is Iron Man 2 - a movie which proved itself the exception to the "first sequel is the best film" rule and was a letdown overall IMO.

Not only that, but The Dark Knight really raised the bar as well. As much as I get annoyed by fanboys who worship Nolan like a god, he really outdid himself with that movie, transcending the genre and asking hard questions that made the viewer think. I'm not saying Thor 2 has to reach those heights, but it would be nice to see a focus on character and drama that feels natural rather than forced, like they're just making a redundant sequel because the first one made money. Iron Man 2 had that feeling of "well, the first one was successful, and we had to make a sequel, sooo...here it is!" The Dark Knight, on the other hand, was an outstanding film on every level that stood on its own two feet.

Bottom line: I'd like a sequel to Thor that's even better than the first, if possible. If Marvel can do that, then I don't care who the director is.

I never got this argument. Fox and Sony also don't have CBMs as their sole asset, but unlike WB are more aggressive in utilizing them.

They have to be. If Sony and Fox doesn't have their respective Marvel films in production/development by a certain time period, the rights will revert back to Marvel and they'll lose everything.

WB on the other hand has no such fear. They can literally do nothing and will always be in control of these properties. Superman probably being the exception at the moment. The upcoming reboot is a product of the Siegel lawsuit, forcing their hand.

You want to know what "creative differences" means? It means she wanted more money, and Marvel wouldn't pay it.

I'm so sick of people blaming crap on Marvel when these things don't work out. Negotiations are a two way street. It's pretty clear what Marvel wants as far as it's Cinematic Universe is concerned, so a director ought to know that when going in, if they were going to have a problem.

__________________"I'm going to show you something beautiful. Everyone screaming, for mercy. You want to protect the world, but you don't want it to change. You're all puppets tangled in strings.......strings....... but now I'm free. There are no strings on me."

They probably announced her as the new director without hammering out the details cause Marvel is on a timeline. So when they got to a certain issue she just walked. Luckily the postponed release date gives them some time to look for a replacement.

You want to know what "creative differences" means? It means she wanted more money, and Marvel wouldn't pay it.

I'm so sick of people blaming crap on Marvel when these things don't work out. Negotiations are a two way street. It's pretty clear what Marvel wants as far as it's Cinematic Universe is concerned, so a director ought to know that when going in, if they were going to have a problem.

Don't worry. The ones doing that are the 'usual suspects' from this forum.

You want to know what "creative differences" means? It means she wanted more money, and Marvel wouldn't pay it.

I'm so sick of people blaming crap on Marvel when these things don't work out. Negotiations are a two way street. It's pretty clear what Marvel wants as far as it's Cinematic Universe is concerned, so a director ought to know that when going in, if they were going to have a problem.

It's always easier to blame the people with no creative involvement in the filmmaking process. We always want to be on the side of the creators, mind you , in this case, are we really at a loss? Granted, I'd be more than happy to see Branagh come back, but failing that, was Patty Jenkins really on anyone's radar to direct a movie like this? Outside of Monster, there's honestly nothing all that impressive on her resume. It'd be interesting to see if Marvel gets to replace her.

Why not get a *Scandinavian* director to direct a film about, you know, Scandinavian gods?

Tomas Alfredson, a Swede, had an international hit with the vampire thriller Let the Right One In, and now he's gone on to bigger things with LeCarre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. He seems to be available, and Marvel could stick a feather in their hat for "cultural authenticity" if they bag him.

I wonder what interviews are going to be like for the main cast that was confirmed and Kenneth when asked about this. I mean one moment we hear Chris, Kenneth, and Tom saying on how great they thought Patty was and of her understanding of the material, then the next minute we get this.

I wonder how actors in their shoes approach doing interviews from here on out when asked about this, especially when another director is finally chosen as a permanent thing for the sequel.

I wonder what interviews are going to be like for the main cast that was confirmed and Kenneth when asked about this. I mean one moment we hear Chris, Kenneth, and Tom saying on how great they thought Patty was and of her understanding of the material, then the next minute we get this.

I wonder how actors in their shoes approach doing interviews from here on out when asked about this, especially when another director is finally chosen as a permanent thing for the sequel.

There's no point in journalists really asking about this from here on out, because the interviews should generally be about the movie that's getting made, not the one that Patty Jenkins...isn't going to make. This is not a Superman Lives situation where the production got within days of filming and/or with a director with much more clout who had major creative control over the production. This is Marvel's bag...and they do make sure people know it.

But yes, actors, etc. move on and just try to produce the best film they can. Many of them do care about the product as well, but are ultimately at the behest of the studio's (and director's) creative choices.

__________________CS/SHH!: Well in the first film...(Bale sees the guy asking the question is wearing a Superman T-shirt.)

Bale:Are you doing that on purpose? You woke up this morning and went "right." (laughing)

You want to know what "creative differences" means? It means she wanted more money, and Marvel wouldn't pay it.

No, not really. Often times it means what it says. Disputes about the creative process and direction of the film/production. The amount of times we've heard about things "falling through" with Marvel Studios and talent in their short life I think really says something about their overall agenda, which to some degree is about money...but it's also about creative and industrial positioning.

Benecio del Toro and Paramount recently "couldn't come to terms" for the Star Trek sequel. That one was about money...apparently. Del Toro has been fairly highly regarded in recent years. Patty Jenkins, while also well-regarded, simply doesn't have the same 'clout'...whether that's partially because she's a rarity, a strong-willed female director, is debatable.

__________________CS/SHH!: Well in the first film...(Bale sees the guy asking the question is wearing a Superman T-shirt.)

Bale:Are you doing that on purpose? You woke up this morning and went "right." (laughing)

I think what we had in the first movie was perfect. It was the perfect tone for a Thor movie. Anything deeper than that would muddle the character just like they did with Superman Returns. The only areas where I would like some better character writing is with the Warriors Three and Sif. The relationship with Thor, Loki, and Odin as well as Thor/Jane was the right fit.

Anything deeper than Thor would be Superman Returns? I think a Thor sequel can (and should) have better writing, without going that far.